Talk:Sae Niijima
Sae Niijima http://personacentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Persona-5-Famitsu-Scan-2.jpg That's Sae Niijima right. --Cococrash11 (talk) 03:16, May 11, 2016 (UTC) :Yes. -- Inpursuit (talk) 03:24, May 11, 2016 (UTC) Personality It's probably better to come to a consensus about which version of the personality section to use, Shepherd or the IP's, instead of just people reverting over and over. There's already a bit of a discusion about it here http://megamitensei.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Personality_section but it'd be better for it to be on the talk page. Personally I like the IP's more. Shepherd's version is basically the length of a profile section, and basically is a profile section disguised as a personality section. IP's is more condensed and is much more befitting as a personality section. If Inpursuit or the anons want to discuss it anymore I think it'd be best to do it here, on its talk page, than the forum. I assume an average user is more likely to see a discussion here than the forum too, so that might cut down on any edit warring. Desacabose'' ''(Talk) 18:29, May 23, 2017 (UTC) :I strongly disagree that we must choose mine or the other, and make such either version final, or vote on it. I doubt Sae's Personality will stay two mere paragraphs forever. We should decide which *parts* of it should remain or go here, instead of just choosing one version, and discuss how to properly concise it because IP did a horrible job at concising it and too much got left out. I also do not appreciate IP 99 refusing to discuss it and trying to end this discussion prematurely and trying to act like their word is final, and then adding an insulting "thank you for playing". Such behavior should not be tolerated. —AlexShepherd ツ 18:36, May 23, 2017 (UTC) ::Anon's did a brilliant job. If you think it's too short, you should be adding new content bit by bit from that version. The current version is just totally broken. -- Inpursuit (talk) 21:34, May 23, 2017 (UTC) :::I think they did a poor job. I don't think the current version is "totally broken" at all. If I do what you say and add it bit-by-bit, then it'll eventually just turn into something resembling the longer version. I'll have another go at shortening and concising the longer version later, so don't change it for now. —AlexShepherd ツ 21:45, May 23, 2017 (UTC) ::::I'm kinda tired of you self-defense personality. Every time people pointing out the flaw of your action, you always end up feeling they don't do you justice. The "resembling the longer version" statement just shows that you can't let go of things that we (except you) have consensus to be inappropriate for the articles. Anything resemble the current version is not going to be acceptable. -- Inpursuit (talk) 22:46, May 23, 2017 (UTC) :::::Can we not start ad hominem? It isn't about "me not being given justice", it's about Sae's personality and character not being given justice in two lousy short paragraphs which fail to communicate the intricacies of her character, and why she acts the way she does (or else she seems oddly bitchy without such elaboration and understanding). Also, it seems like you're caring far more about the length and structure of the section, rather than the value of what it actually communicates. All it takes is 1-2 seconds to scroll past the Personality section if it's lengthy. And I don't think it's lengthy at all - have you seen the lengths of Anakin Skywalker or Harry Potter, among many other lengthy examples on Wikia? Sure, they may be stars of the show, but Sae's looks small in comparison. Don't get me wrong, I understand the value of being concise, but sometimes, things need elaboration. Anyway, I'll see what I can do later, just give me some time. —AlexShepherd ツ 23:25, May 23, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Just because lengthy personality analysis is accepted in other wiki projects, doesn't mean we would accept it in Megami Tensei wiki. The problem of your edits is the attempt to put words in the developers' mouths. We already have consensus against your original researches, but it's you, ONLY YOU, defending your own essays. I may wait for few days for your "correction", but if others restore the Anon's version or rewrite to much shorter version, I will not hesitate to maintain that version whenever you roll it back. -- Inpursuit (talk) 01:06, May 24, 2017 (UTC) :::::::I'm not trying to "put words in the devs mouths", I'm trying to analyze based on the information given. And appeal to majority? Quit with the "you're only doing this alone, you should stop because others disagree with you, it's just you defending yourself" attitude. Like, I get it already. I'm not dumb, you know, I'm well aware I tend to have minority opinions. What I DON'T need is people reverting back to the anon's versions, since I tend to make multiple edits over time, instead of all at once. It might take 10-15 edits over the next few days. —AlexShepherd ツ 01:13, May 24, 2017 (UTC) :::::::So I spent 1/3 of an hour and 8 edits (it's not even finalized), and I get told I'm not 'making a great effort' and am accused of being lazy. Can you just like, please politely shut up with that shit? I'm doing what I can. I think the length is fine now, but I don't get why people are upset about Sae's length, instead of Yukari's, Junpei's, Yu's or Kanji's (not saying I think those articles have Personality sections that are too long, but they are certainly longer than Sae's). If you want to critique the current version, I'm all ears anyway. —AlexShepherd ツ 19:19, May 24, 2017 (UTC) :You analyzing given information has brought us stuff like "Ann's attitude of dressing that way may explain why the cast of P3 and P4 do that too," the apparent design choice of Sae's gray hair being speculative as well unless it's in an artbook and some other stuff I'm not aware about. And the wiki isn't about appealing to the majority (I guess that's what I understood from your wikipedia link) but to provide factual evidence on the pages. Also, I think Kanji's and Yu's pages get a pass due to being characters being on multiple games that add something new to their personality while Sae is just a confidant and an NPC, major character or not. And using Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker as examples when they belong to a different franchise and different wikis with different mods and admins you aren't doing a good job at coming up with examples. :BUT.... I will agree with Alex in saying he ain't lazy... sure questionable edits some times but I don't think he's lazy. That almost sounds passive-agressive. Crok425 (talk) 23:52, May 24, 2017 (UTC) ::No offense, can you please butt out of conversations that don't concern you? I'm sick of feeling like people gang up on me, always judging my character, scrutinizing me and my edits, and trying to tell me my opinions don't matter because I'm a minority. I want to focus less an ad hominem and more on improving the wiki on a case-by-case basis. I just want to focus on Sae's personality, I don't need the entire world and their mom involved with this, but when people like you constantly find every opportunity to judge me and list my previous actions into every new debate when I don't want it, it gets quite irritating. I do appreciate you saying I'm not lazy, but I'd just rather you not get involved with this. —AlexShepherd ツ 00:08, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::No. I'm as free as a bird to add something that concerns the quality of the wiki, and if college ever taught me something is that there needs to be an uneven number in a group during an arguement. I thought you said this can be done and it was called "polite discussions" or "polite accusations." And I bring up your previous actions because it is about said "analyzes given information" that brought you to said actions and of course heated discussions with many users, admins and mods. :::I'm not trying to find every chance to make you look bad, really... I just wanted to bring up the grey hair thing. Crok425 (talk) 00:43, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::I never said you're not "allowed" to, it's a request from a wiki editor to a wiki editor, but it seems you're deliberately trying to get involved in literally ever wiki debate I'm involved in. I don't know if it's a coincidence or not, but it's certainly grating. Anyway, focusing on the issue, I don't find anything wrong with the grey hair Trivia as it's a very valid and possible. If it bugs you that much, you can remove it. I strongly think that was the intent behind her hair color, tho. —AlexShepherd ツ 01:50, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::::You're definitely taking things too personal. The reason people have so many opinions about your actions is because you dedicate yourself zealously in adding every last bit of personal understandings to the articles but disagreed by many other fellow editors. Call it populism you may, but you should take some rest to realize the reasons behind our judgment apart from "we are too stupid to comprehend you". -- Inpursuit (talk) 02:28, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::::About the Boomerang and grey hair dye theories, the reason it is a bad idea to add these is that different people can have a totally opposite interpretation of these situation. You are forcefully presenting these theories as the developer's ideas without solid evidence or other editors' support. -- Inpursuit (talk) 02:31, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::::If someone insults another's character, then it's only natural for the one being insulted to want to defend themselves. Nowhere am I claiming these "understandings" as fact or claiming these are the developer's intentions, so you should stop making these false claims to discredit my reasonable and basic character analysis from inferencing the information given in-game. —AlexShepherd ツ 02:37, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::::::Then please put these in your own blog or post it to Megaten/Persona related Gamefaqs forum or Subreddit. A Wiki project is not the best place to present personal ideas disagreed by many other editors. -- Inpursuit (talk) 02:47, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::Then they get ignored, not much attention is given to them, or they get lost in time. This is the issue I have with the "anything uncertain or resembling an interpretation should not be on a wiki" mentality that a lot of users have. For example, Sae's hair being grey to symbolize her being a stressed character makes sense. If it was something like "It's possible Sae is related to Katherine from Catherine because they dress similarly", then yeah, I'd understand its removal. Maybe someday, Wikia will have a "Uncertainty" tab which lists ideas like these. However, being extremely opposed to uncertain ideas is something I disagree with. I think wikis are the perfect place to preserve such ideas, under the conditions that it's not stated as fact, kept concise and short, and generally agreeable and reasonable (and not super far out there). There's a lot of uncertainties listed on this wiki, such as the inspirations of P5 character names, or Futaba's Oracle possibly being from DC. So all I see are double standards. Also, no one is disagreeing with the hair theory and saying it's illogical or unreasonable because it's plausible when you think about it. —AlexShepherd ツ 03:00, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::I disagree with regards to the inclusion of the hair theory. Even as a theory, it doesn't hold any substantial basis in terms of the artist's comments and developmental process. There's nothing wrong with such ideas and discourse of such ideas are perfectly fine. I mean, that's what fandoms and blogging with fellow fans are very useful for and what makes them engaging in the first place. Rather, adding trivia about random character traits with the inclusion of your own interpretation for the usage of such traits can be misleading especially when Soejima simply could have chosen her hair color based purely on aesthetic reasons (never mind the fact that Soejima describes his design process for Sae as being based on his ideal of the most beautiful woman). If Soejima had made a purposeful comment about her hair, such as his design choice of changing Futaba's hair color from black to light brown/orange, then I'd understand but this is simply not the case. That said, I agree that the inclusion of the Oracle trivia can be a bit of a stretch, but it's hardly an interpretation of a character's specific trait considering how at the very least it's mainly observational comparisons towards the English localization than outright interpretation of the developers' creative process (not to mention how the developers have likened the Phantom Thieves to Western superheroes with regards to the game's international appeal). I myself don't like it from a trivia standpoint since comparisons can get readily excessive and arbitrary in their inclusions, but it's hardly comparable to ascribing reasons for purposeful design choices especially one that lends to multiple interpretations. Also, the consensus shouldn't just be dismissed especially when multiple users take issue with the edits being made. --DementedP (talk) 03:49, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::The part about superhero is partially true as the official art book admits that the dev referenced Superman for Robin Hood's design. But it would be a huge problem if we write "because of Robin Hood's design motif, Atlus USA picked the name 'Oracle' from DC Comics for Futaba" in the article. This is called " " in Wikipedia and the practice is poisonous. -- Inpursuit (talk) 03:56, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::Agreed with regards to the superhero reference. I should mention that my referral to the developers mentioning Western superheroes was actually done in a press release after the game came out internationally (you can find the article on Anime News Network and a link to the official press release), so I'm not just making it up either. Also Alex, your comment about interpretations being "ignored, not much attention is given to them, or they get lost in time" is not necessarily true. You still have the ability to make your ideas known if you reach out to others through other channels/platforms such as blogs or forum discussions. You might even be surprised to find that such platforms for fandom discussions are actually pretty popular nowadays. What I disagree with is using this as reasoning for making purposeful edits on a Wiki which can be very irresponsible. Also, though you may dislike the notion of consensus, that's an issue you should take up with Wikipedia guidelines, not just a specific Wiki of your choice. --DementedP (talk) 04:12, May 25, 2017 (UTC) (unindent) I don't see why the theory has to "hold any substantial basis in terms of the artist's comments and developmental process" in order to be a legit piece of Trivia. I don't see how the theory is "a random character trait" either - Sae is a very stressed and exhausted character, so it's relevant to her. And I don't think it's misleading at all because it's not claimed as fact, just a theory, and I'm not claiming it to be Soejima's intention. Wikia is not Wikipedia, so we do not have to uphold every single Wikipedia rule. I don't see why we have to use a completely separate wiki's policy for this particular SMT wiki either, since each wiki has a specific set of rules and guidelines. (For example, saying anything remotely insulting on this wiki, even the littlest of an insult such as "foolish" or "nincompoop", can get you blocked.) I never said I "dislike the notion of consensus" or am trying to ignore it. This is literally the first time we've talked about the hair Trivia and haven't made a consensus yet. This originally was about reducing the size of Sae's personality section, but now it's become a topic about hair color. —AlexShepherd ツ 04:20, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :So can flame baiting. By all means, keep trying my patience. Great Mara (talk) 04:36, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::I'm not trying to "flame bait", I never expected you to join this conversation. I'm just simply repeating the rules which you told me. —AlexShepherd ツ 04:38, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::Except a substantial source/basis of information is exactly what separates a "legit" piece of Trivia from one that is simply based on your own interpretation of the character (hence, "legitimate"). If that were the case, then one might as well add needless amounts of trivia as long as it doesn't contradict the given information within the source. Though you might argue its plausibility due to Sae's given personality (which I don't deny), by linking Sae's exhaustive state to a specific design trait, you're already making assumptions about Soejima or the developers' design choices which in itself can be very misleading. By random "character trait", I'm referring to making very specific interpretations about various traits such as a character's hair color, not the fact that it's necessarily irrelevant. Also the point about the hair color was brought up with regards to your respective edits, so I don't see why it's an issue at all considering how you ascribe the choice of hair color to Sae's personality and general mental state. --DementedP (talk) 04:45, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::First of all, you're saying a possibility without much evidence doesn't qualify as Trivia while a Trivia backed with evidence does. However, I think we need to focus on the overall picture because of reasoning. I'd read the hair trivia and think "Oh, that's plausible and makes sense, yes". You're comparing the hair Trivia to something totally random and unfounded such as "Sae may wear pink underwear" or "Sae may like tofu", which is why you're making a false equivalence. In context, I think the grey hair to suggest exhaustion is not random at all, nor is it coming out of left field or "unfounded". And while it's possible Soejima did not intend it, it is just as possible that he did. You're almost treating the reader like a dummy, assuming they can't distinguish between what's a possibility and what isn't. Only a dummy would read the hair Trivia and think "this is what Soejima intended, even tho it is merely suggested as a possibility on the wiki". Finally, I was simply noting the direction the topics of this conversation went - you said, I "may dislike the notion of consensus", almost suggesting as if you're trying to invalidate my hair theory based on a previous argument since we haven't even reached a consensus on the hair trivia yet. —AlexShepherd ツ 05:03, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::"You're almost treating the reader like a dummy, assuming they can't distinguish between what's a possibility and what isn't." Except your providing of such an information is downright misleading and it's also manipulative of the reader, which is the direct opposite of what you're suggesting in giving the reader the freedom to interpret such design traits themselves. Soejima could have or could not have intended it, but beyond using her personality as your basis you have no substantial source to even remotely suggest an ounce of validity to the trivia piece beyond your own personal observations. Similar arbitrary observations could apply for any number of characters with oddly colored hair, which makes the inclusion of this trivia even more questionable considering how the choice of hair color could have been made based on any given reason (what with the Persona franchise being heavily anime-inspired and all). Again, there's nothing wrong with your idea especially if you posit it in a forum/blog (heck I welcome it), but something as specific as making assumptions on the design choice when there's hardly any implied material to substantiate such ideas makes it purely interpretation on your part. It's arbitrary trivia without substantive basis that manipulates the reader's perspective instead of simply allowing them to freely interpret what they see. Also why are you making assumptions about where I'm taking the direction of this topic? My referral to consensus has nothing to do with invalidating your hair theory (seriously?), I was referring to how you specifically claimed having problems with the notion of consensus due to your opinions being that of the minority. Stop injecting malice in my choice of words just because you disagree with them. I would have thought that you'd at least think better of me with how I've suggested various (better) platforms for you to more freely express your ideas than simply limiting yourself to a wiki's Trivia section of all places. If you truly wish to come to a consensus regarding the hair trivia then just say the word and I'll start the topic for you. --DementedP (talk) 05:49, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::I don't think it's misleading or manipulative if the reader has a decent brain and the ability to read critically. If you're so concerned about them being misled, then it's easy to add a simple "...but it is unknown if Soejima actually intended it or not". Problem solved. The reader may not even be aware of this hair theory - it just gives them something to think about and consider. So basically, you're just saying "lack of sufficient evidence" is your main point, which is fine, but I don't think it should automatically disqualify it due to it still being reasonable and plausible (agree to disagree here). I don't think making a consensus is worth it since everyone here likes to pile on me, and there's nothing I can do about it. It's futile. —AlexShepherd ツ 06:02, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::::We do not add any redundant disclaimer in the article. If an info has any issue of disagreement among editors, we remove it instead of saying "it does not represent someone's POV/it only represents soneone's POV". You are contributing this wiki in a totally wrong direction. It's not that I dislike all of your contributions. That book of Issiah" reference in Rivers in the Desert is valid even w/o official statement because it's straightforward to be understood, but your personality analyses, not so much. -- Inpursuit (talk) 06:10, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::::It's a small tiny elaboration. You're just finding the strangest and oddest excuses not to include it. And I *do not* advocate saying ""it does not represent someone's POV/it only represents soneone's POV", I'm advocating it being said like "this is possible, although we are unsure if this is what the devs wanted". It's not a big deal. —AlexShepherd ツ 06:16, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::::::It's misleading specifically because it puts forth a theory that isn't in any way substantiated beyond your own personal observations and it manipulates the reader's viewpoint by positing an idea that has no actual supportive material beyond inference of the character's personality and could otherwise be interpreted differently. If the character trait was something far more explicit in nature then I'd understand, but the fickle nature of ascribing anime hair color to specific meanings and design decisions make these matters more difficult to ascertain. In this regard, I disagree that plausibility itself is enough to justify its inclusion especially when the design choice of a character's hair color lends itself to far too many possibilities when it comes to interpretation. If there was an off-hand comment from any of the developers or specific character dialogue/exchange that could potentially imply the idea behind it, I'd definitely understand how you'd come to such a conclusion. I should mention that I don't necessarily disagree with your theory (I find it interesting) rather its inclusion without substantive material to support it is what I have an issue with especially as someone who treats developer design choices seriously (which in this case, I find to be manipulative of the artist's intentions). That said, I apologize if it seems like I'm exclusively targeting you as if I'm acting as part of a mob of sorts. More than anything, my initial contribution towards the hair trivia discussion was purely coincidental since it was only something that came to my attention by reading through Sae's page and not so much nitpicking your edits as a whole. --DementedP (talk) 06:45, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::I wouldn't call it "misleading" or "manipulative". Again, it seems like you're just treating the player like they're dumb and acting like they can be easily misled. And I won't push this hair theory any more - not because I'm admitting I'm wrong, just because this entire conversation is exhausting and I'm tired of it. And it's fine if you're not trying to be a "mob". With that, this conversation should be over. —AlexShepherd ツ 06:59, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :I also digress a bit, Alex, please stop uploading any more GIFs captured from the game/anime. I can't fathom how much you aim at, but I think you're, consciously or not, attempting to make this wiki a GIF novel, in other word, replacing the importance of the source material, which raises a huge threat of copyright lawsuit. Dare I say, the amount you (as well as other GIF uploaders) have done completely exceeds fair use rationale. -- Inpursuit (talk) 04:55, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::I like funny and cool-looking GIFs. I thought you had an issue with GIFs only on the main articles, but are you also annoyed about GIFs in Galleries? —AlexShepherd ツ 05:03, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::My issue is that you pay no due respects to the developers/publishers, or at least you think you're contributing to the series' popularity, but in the end, you're using this wiki to replace the importance of the source material. -- Inpursuit (talk) 05:09, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::Um, no? I like capturing the charm and memorable moments of the games and putting it on the wiki. I'm not trying to make the wiki as a replacement for the game or anything. They're just GIFs from the game. I don't see how they're breaking a "fair use rationale". —AlexShepherd ツ 05:14, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::::You're uploading game/anime cutscene in GIF format at a constant speed. Unless you indicate any constraint to this practice, what I foresee is every character article will be completely filled by GIFs of every important plot point. Above all, this is a huge disrespect of the developers who earn from selling their works instead of being shared by the like of you for free. -- Inpursuit (talk) 05:24, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::::::I'd like to butt back in to say I agree there's far too many redundant pictures and gifs on pages. I'm not gonna hunt up a ton of examples because I don't know how everyone else feels, but specifically stuff like this. There's no reason for that short little gif to be there when a picture would service just as well, I mean there's even a picture of that excact scene on the page. There's also a lot of overlap like that in some pictures too, where it's straight up the same scene but a second has passed and one of the characters moved slightly. If I wanted to I could probably say the same thing about how it seems like there's a lot of unneeded videos on some pages too but, again, I don't know how everyone else feels. Desacabose'' ''(Talk) 05:46, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::I added the Nyx gif because it looks very epic and I love the moving sky since it gives it an eerie feeling, something which I feel a still image lacks. I'll try to avoid redundancy in the future, but I don't see the harm in adding a funny GIF from the game every now and then. And no, there won't be gifs of EVERY important plot point, but this is a wiki - we're supposed to document important plot points. —AlexShepherd ツ 06:02, May 25, 2017 (UTC) Hi, I'd like to give a few suggestion. There are always ways to simplify sections like these: Avoid giving detailed explanations, because it may veer into becoming elaborate observations. Writing concisely and summarizing them is always better. Also, citations are always useful; especially with a dialog from the game. Yes, I'd encourage editors to actually cite a dialog from the game to illustrate a statement, instead of elaborating the statement further. Also, I agree that there is an overlap of images and videos that could be unnecessary. If the image serves to illustrate a particular statement in the wiki, then that image has a purpose and serves it well. If the image is also entertaining, that is even better. But if the image is only meant to be pleasing, but is not there to support a statement in the wiki, it isn't necessary. I have always thought that for a statement to be nontrivial, it must always be supported by citation from the original source. Which is why back when there was an argument on what the height for Yu Narukami was, we went to find a source material that can give clarity on what it truly is. So again, my point is: arguable, contentious statements should be supported with a citation. If not, we'll forever have this argument about a statement being too elaborate etc etc. Sure, Wikia is not Wikipedia, that is true, but if it works to lessen contention then I don't see why it shouldn't be used here as well. I personally rather like that instead of long discussions that may invoke ad hominem. BLUER一番 06:51, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :I have issue with your (Alex') "I like it so I think it should be added here" attitude as an editor, not because I view you as an enemy, but a fellow editor who has become a liability to this project. Besides personality analyses and GIFs, I really can't stand that you add Youtube videos of P5 songs to our song articles when the OST has just been released less than a year. Just because Atlus/Sega Sammy hasn't taken any legal action doesn't mean it's an ok to share them from here. I love P5's songs, but I understand there is a line we should not cross, or at least we should wait until the songs have lost their popularity, that's the time when sharing the videos here is considered acceptable. Again, if you can't let go of the "I like it so it's ok to do that" mentality, please take some serious rest from editing, otherwise you do more harm than good. -- Inpursuit (talk) 07:00, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::About the hair thing... I strongly disagree with it because Yu and Akihiko also have gray hair. Sae's hair may be gray for the sole purpose of aesthetic and to differintiate her from other characters, neither it has been said in an artbook. Besides, I would actually believe it if the characters were designed by Kaneko. Why? Because Kaneko doesn't take liberties on hair colors and actually uses realistic colors but in different tones to make some characters stand out on others (like Tatsuya's hair almost being red but it's brown), and when that isn't the case it's because of hair dye, or because they are caucasian (Lisa) or for being AI characters (DDS). So yeah, from a character designer that makes blue, crimson, gray and orange hair colors for teenagers AND not being hair dye you can't really come to the "theory" that Sae's gray hair is due to stress. Crok425 (talk) 08:54, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::I don't mean she *literally* gone grey prematurely, the grey hair just "subconsciously" implies it as a form of symbolism. I would also argue that the Persona 3 protagonist has blue hair to make him appear calm, depressed and introverted. Also, I'm not sure I understand your argument as they are mutually exclusive, I think. I'm pretty sure that a lot of characters from P3/P4 do indeed dye their hair - interviews revealed Yosuke and Chie do. And I thought I saw a snapshot that Ryuji bleaches his. —AlexShepherd ツ 10:36, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::Ryuji does indeed dye his hair blonde but that's at least given an in-universe explanation (mainly due to his delinquency and rebellious attitude towards the school/authority figures) and it's more like the exception than the rule. That still doesn't explain why other characters come in various hair colors such as Yusuke's blue, Haru and Akechi's brown etc. Only Futaba was given any reason for the specific choice of hair color by Soejima so far (orange hair color) and it was mainly done from an aesthetic standpoint, because Soejima felt that black hair on a withdrawn individual gave too much of a negative image. Again, just as Sae's hair color could have been chosen for symbolic reasons, it could also have been chosen purely from an aesthetic standpoint, and it's not really uncommon considering how many Japanese artists use pale/silver hair for even young characters. If there's actual material supporting this theory such as your referral to Yosuke and Chie being revealed in interviews, I'd be okay to include it but as it is, it's just pure speculation. For all we know Sae could be dying her hair for stylistic purposes and I could just as easily give a plausible reason for it with regards to her personality and position in the workforce, but that doesn't mean it immediately should be added to her trivia especially without substantial material to back it up. --DementedP (talk) 11:45, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :::::I understand what you meant, I get the symbolism thing but considering the great ammount of hair color from P3 onward you can't make an arguement if the gray hair is solely for show or if it in fact a symbolism... that still falls under the speculation thing that isn't allowed here. I know Yosuke and Chie (and possibly Ryuji) dye their hair (ironically Yosuke and Chie have realistic colored hair and is still dyed) but we don't know that for the P3 MC, Yu or Akihiko... neither for Sae, meaning that the symbolism is solely your take on the design choice given to her. Crok425 (talk) 11:54, May 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Sheesh, can we all drop the hair talk already? I already agreed to dropping the hair theory. There's no need to be redundant and repeat what has already been said. —AlexShepherd ツ 12:03, May 25, 2017 (UTC) Confidant I really hope Sae becomes a romantic option for the protagonist like the other female confidants. Given that she was initially going to have that option, until the developers decided to change it at the last minute, I think the developers might give the fans what they wanted..